Airway suctioning procedure and its complications in subjects with invasive mechanical ventilation in intensive care units of a public hospital in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires: a descriptive observational study
Abstract
Objective: To describe the airway suctioning (AS) procedure in subjects with invasive mechanical ventilation, report the associated complications, and assess the degree of compliance with the recommendations established in the Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) of the American Association for Respiratory Care (AARC). The secondary objective is to investigate whether there are discrepancies between the AS procedures that lead to complications and those that do not.
Materials and methods: An observational and prospective study was conducted on subjects over 18 years of age who received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) through an endotracheal tube and were attended by respiratory and physical therapists at the time of the observation. Observations were carried out during the routine care of the subjects using a checklist based on the recommendations of the AARC CPG, and complications were recorded.
Results: A total of 104 observations were conducted on 48 subjects. Fifty-one percent of AS procedures met the criteria established by the CPG, and at least one complication occurred in 76% of them. Blood pressure (BP) changes were the most prevalent complication. AS procedures that met the criteria showed a complication rate similar to those that did not (77 % vs. 76 %, p=0.90).
Conclusion: It was observed that the recommendations by the AARC CPG were partially followed. Furthermore, complications associated with AS procedures, particularly changes in BP, were frequent.
References
Maggiore SM, Lellouche F, Pignataro C, Girou E, Maitre B, Richard JC, et al. Decreasing the adverse effects of endotracheal suctioning during mechanical ventilation by changing practice. Respir Care. 2013 Oct;58(10):1588-97. doi: 10.4187/respcare.02265
Crossref
| Google Scholar
Ashurst S. Suction therapy in the critically ill patient. Br J Nurs. 1992 Sep 24-Oct 7;1(10):485-9. doi: 10.12968/bjon.1992.1.10.485
Crossref
| Google Scholar
American Association for Respiratory Care. AARC Clinical Practice Guidelines. Endotracheal suctioning of mechanically ventilated patients with artificial airways. 2010. Respir Care. 2010 Jun;55(6):758-64.
Kjonegaard R, Fields W, King ML. Current practice in airway management: A descriptive evaluation. Am J Crit Care. 2010 Mar;19(2):168-73; quiz 174. doi: 10.4037/ajcc2009803
Crossref
| Google Scholar
Leddy R, Wilkinson JM. Endotracheal suctioning practices of nurses and respiratory therapists: How well do they align with clinical practice guidelines? Can J Respir Ther. 2015 Summer;51(3):60-4.
Brooks D, Solway S, Graham I, Downes L, Carter M. A survey of suctioning practices among physical therapists, respiratory therapists and nurses. Can Respir J. 1999 Nov-Dec;6(6):513-20. doi: 10.1155/1999/230141
Crossref
| Google Scholar
Sole ML, Bennett M. Comparison of airway management practices between registered nurses and respiratory care practitioners. Am J Crit Care. 2014 May;23(3):191-9; quiz 200. doi: 10.4037/ajcc2014424
Crossref
| Google Scholar
Tan CSL, Harrold M, Hill K. Approaches and adjuncts used by physiotherapists when suctioning adult patients who are intubated and ventilated in intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand: A cross-sectional survey. Aust Crit Care. 2017 Nov;30(6):307-313. doi: 10.1016/j.aucc.2017.01.002
Crossref
| Google Scholar
Blakeman TC, Scott JB, Yoder MA, Capellari E, Strickland SL. AARC Clinical Practice Guidelines: Artificial Airway Suctioning. Respir Care. 2022 Feb;67(2):258-271. doi: 10.4187/respcare.09548
Crossref
| Google Scholar
Manterola C, Otzen T. Estudios observacionales: los diseños utilizados con mayor frecuencia en investigación clínica. Int. J. Morphol. 2014;32(2):634-645. doi: 10.4067/S0717-95022014000200042
Crossref
| Google Scholar
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8
Crossref
| Google Scholar
Rojas-Gambasica JA, Valencia-Moreno A, Nieto-Estrada VH, Méndez-Osorio P, Molano-Franco D, Jiménez-Quimbaya AT, et al. Validación transcultural y lingüística de la escala de sedación y agitación Richmond al español. Rev Colomb Anestesiol. 2016;44(3):218-223. doi: 10.1016/j.rca.2016.04.003
Crossref
| Google Scholar
Chanques G, Constantin JM, Devlin JW, Ely EW, Fraser GL, Gélinas C, et al. Analgesia and sedation in patients with ARDS. Intensive Care Med. 2020 Dec;46(12):2342-2356. doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-06307-9
Crossref
| Google Scholar
Overend TJ, Anderson CM, Brooks D, Cicutto L, Keim M, McAuslan D, Nonoyama M. Updating the evidence-base for suctioning adult patients: a systematic review. Can Respir J. 2009 May-Jun;16(3):e6-17. doi: 10.1155/2009/872921
Crossref
| Google Scholar
Maggiore SM, Lellouche F, Pigeot J, Taille S, Deye N, Durrmeyer X, et al. Prevention of endotracheal suctioning-induced alveolar derecruitment in acute lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003 May 1;167(9):1215-24. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200203-195OC
Crossref
| Google Scholar
Van de Leur JP, Zwaveling JH, Loef BG, Van der Schans CP. Endotracheal suctioning versus minimally invasive airway suctioning in intubated patients: a prospective randomised controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2003 Mar;29(3):426-32. doi: 10.1007/s00134-003-1639-9
Crossref
| Google Scholar
Beuret P, Roux C, Constan A, Mercat A, Brochard L. Discrepancy between guidelines and practice of tracheal suctioning in mechanically ventilated patients: a French multicenter observational study. Intensive Care Med. 2013 Jul;39(7):1335-6. doi: 10.1007/s00134-013-2936-6
Crossref
| Google Scholar
Guglielminotti J, Alzieu M, Maury E, Guidet B, Offenstadt G. Bedside detection of retained tracheobronchial secretions in patients receiving mechanical ventilation: is it time for tracheal suctioning? Chest. 2000 Oct;118(4):1095-9. doi: 10.1378/chest.118.4.1095
Crossref
| Google Scholar
Jongerden IP, Kesecioglu J, Speelberg B, Buiting AG, Leverstein-van Hall MA, Bonten MJ. Changes in heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and oxygen saturation after open and closed endotracheal suctioning: a prospective observational study. J Crit Care. 2012 Dec;27(6):647-54. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2012.02.016
Crossref
| Google Scholar
Javadi M, Hejr H, Zolad M, Khalili A, Paymard A. Comparing the effect of endotracheal tube suction using open method with two different size catheters 12 and 14 on discharge secretion, pain, heart rate, blood pressure, and arterial oxygen saturation of patients in the intensive care unit: A randomized clinical trial. Ann Trop Med Public Health. 2017;10(5):1312-1317. doi: 10.4103/ATMPH.ATMPH_181_17
Crossref
| Google Scholar
Demir F, Dramali A. Requirement for 100% oxygen before and after closed suction. J Adv Nurs. 2005 Aug;51(3):245-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03500.x
Crossref
| Google Scholar
Kerem E, Yatsiv I, Goitein KJ. Effect of endotracheal suctioning on arterial blood gases in children. Intensive Care Med. 1990;16(2):95-9. doi: 10.1007/BF02575301
Crossref
| Google Scholar
Wang CH, Tsai JC, Chen SF, Su CL, Chen L, Lin CC, Tam KW. Normal saline instillation before suctioning: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Aust Crit Care. 2017 Sep;30(5):260-265. doi: 10.1016/j.aucc.2016.11.001
Crossref
| Google Scholar
Berg BL. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2001. 304 p.
